1. Full Fact complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that an article headlined “Britain gains economically, financially
and culturally from cross-border movement of labour. Politicians should
confront the populism that denies this”, published by The Times on 15 October
2014, was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice.

2. The article under complaint was a leader comment on
immigration and British political parties’ approaches to it. It claimed that
“when people hear predictions, exaggerated though they no doubt are, of one
million extra migrants in London by 2030, as Migration Watch is claiming, they
feel fearful.”

3. The complainant said that, while Migration Watch had
cited this projection, it was in fact an official estimate from the Office for
National Statistics (ONS); the newspaper’s reference was misleading in implying
that it originated with the group, and by extension had misled readers
regarding the available evidence on population projections for foreign
residents.

4. The newspaper had published the following letter from
Migration Watch’s Chairman, making clear that the figure was from the ONS,
shortly after publication, online (on its online letters page and appended to
the article), and in print:

Sir, Your leader (“Migration Benefits, Oct 15) stated that
our prediction of one million extra migrants in London by 2030 was “no doubt”
exaggerated. Far from it. It is taken from the projections of the Office of
National Statistics. Indeed all our work is based on official statistics and
often casts light on aspects which those in favour of the present massive
levels of immigration would rather not be properly understood.

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman, Migration Watch UK

5. The complainant considered that this was an inadequate
response. It stated that letter and spirit of the Editors’ Code clearly
intended letters as a means of resolution when there is a directly affected
party alone or where there are a number of minor inaccuracies, neither of which
applied here; the same letter and spirit called for corrections as a means of
dealing with “straightforward factual errors”. In this instance, the
publication of the letter had left the inaccuracy without public acknowledgement
or acceptance of accountability by the newspaper, without amendment and without
correction.

6. This was not purely a matter between the group and the
newspaper; wider harm had been done to public understanding. Population
projections relating to immigration not only touched on an issue of huge
importance to the public, but affected planning for public services in the
future. It was important that these were not misunderstood. In any case, the
complainant noted that Migration Watch’s position on the matter had not been
confirmed.

7. The newspaper accepted that the article was inaccurate in
implying that the figure was the product of the group’s own research, rather
than an official statistic. It argued that the publication of letters from
parties directly involved is a recognised and reasonable means of dealing with
inaccuracies, although not appropriate in all cases, and that in this instance
the publication of the letter had constituted an adequate corrective to the
inaccuracy. It noted that the letter had appeared in print on the same page as
its Corrections & Clarifications column, and that any correction on the
subject would have been significantly shorter.

8. It regarded Migration Watch as the most closely involved
party to the complaint, as the claim could potentially damage its reputation by
suggesting, inaccurately, that it was a source of unreliable data. It noted
that IPSO’s Regulations state that “in the case of third party complaints the
position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account”. It said that it was long accepted that a
reader’s letter was an appropriate way of remedying an inaccuracy, and provided
a number of examples of cases in which letters had been published in The Times
correcting factual inaccuracies. It declined to offer a further remedy.

Relevant Code Provisions

9. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published.

Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)

A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given
when reasonably called for.

Findings of the Committee

10. The Editors’ Code specifies two possible remedies for
the publication of inaccuracies, in both instances with qualifications. Clause
1 provides for corrections for “significant” inaccuracies, misleading
statements or distortions – “once recognised”; Clause 2 provides for a “fair
opportunity” for reply to inaccuracies, but only “when reasonably called for”.
The nature of the remedy that will be necessary in an individual case must
depend on the individual circumstances, most importantly the nature of the
inaccuracy.

11. It was not in dispute that Migration Watch had cited the
statistic to support its stance on immigration to the UK; the Committee noted
that the letter from the Chairman of Migration Watch referred to “our
prediction” and stated that it was “taken from” projections by the ONS. Whether
promulgated by the ONS or the group, the statistic represented a prediction of
future events, and not a statement of fact. The article under complaint was a
leader, and the newspaper was entitled, as a general point, to express the view
that the figure was “no doubt exaggerated”. The problem arose in this instance
because this suggestion of “exaggeration” appeared to be based on an
inaccurate, or at least incomplete, understanding of the figure’s provenance.

12. This point required action on the part of the newspaper
to remedy the position with respect to Migration Watch. In the Committee’s
view, this was an occasion in which an opportunity to reply was reasonably
called for and promptly supplied. The newspaper had met its obligations under
Clause 2, and it was appropriate for it to have appended the letter to the
online article, to ensure that any future readers of the article would be aware
of the position.

13. The Committee did not agree, however, that the article
would significantly mislead readers on the broader point – as the complainant
had put it, “the available evidence on population projections for foreign
residents”. On its face, the leader had merely suggested that the newspaper
regarded one specific projection about immigration as likely to be exaggerated,
a position the newspaper was entitled to take, notwithstanding the
misattribution of the statistic. The letter had appropriately addressed the
inaccuracy regarding the implied basis of its criticism. The remaining issues
did not require correction under Clause 1 (ii).